Evolution contradicts Islam

[Alchemist]

This doesn't look like a straw man to me:

YouTube - The "Straw Man" Fallacy


A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

My complete statement:

Just free your mind for a second and follow what I have to say, openly. Forget everything else because I am about to tell you what I personally believe about the ayats that says the earth is flat.

There are two words that Allah uses together often, Samawat and Ard.
Samawat is usually translated to "Heavens" and Ard is Earth. We commonly believe that Earth is planet Earth and that the Samawat is the universe, the solar system, the galaxies. However, Samawat is plural, and it is seven, but the universe is one.

.....

The heavens are not only what we see of this universe but the Heavens that stretch forth to the many layers of "Heaven". This could very well mean different dimensions.
.....

And the scientists now believe that the universe is flat.
I am not saying that the ayats means this. But this is just for you to know that there are other explanations. And that the mufaseering are not "wrong" or "contradicting empiricism".


And as you said somewhere else, the Qur'an is easy to understand in laymen's term, but give it further thought, and you will see deeper layers in it, and only those who have dedicated their whole life to it can peer that far into it.

You - being an idiot - have cut out a phrase from my sentence and trying to deceive your self into saying that I am proponent of "Earth is Flat" vs "Earth is Round" theory.



Swordboy's original Strawman

You aren't responding with anything profound, Tafsir Jalalayn also claims the Earth is flat. It only verifies the essence behind my argument; that the understandings given by the Islamic Savants of past in regards to the Ontology of the Universe and its contents as well as the genesis of living beings was based on their limited scope of knowledge and their assumptions based on what available data they had.

Al Jalalain's tafseer of Ayat 79:3

Recite VerseOpen in new windowGo to quran page
{ وَٱلأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ دَحَاهَا }

and after that He spread out the earth: He made it flat, for it had been created before the heaven, but without having been spread out;

Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

(And after that He spread the earth,) He explains this statement by the statement that follows it,
[أَخْرَجَ مِنْهَا مَآءَهَا وَمَرْعَـهَا ]
(And brought forth therefrom its water and its pasture.) It already has been mentioned previously in Surat Ha Mim As-Sajdah that the earth was created before the heaven was created, but it was only spread out after the creation of the heaven. This means that He brought out what was in it with a forceful action. This is the meaning of what was said by Ibn `Abbas and others, and it was the explanation preferred by Ibn Jarir.



The original argument was that Evolution contradicts Islam.

You and swordboy made a strawman - "Earth is Flat vs Earth is Round" and tried to use the argument of Kufar to discredit the Muffaseerin..


Then swordboy goes on to give a fallacious argument saying:

It is clear you have not had a reading or any familiarity of Al-Jahith; and are dependent on Christian-Creationist Rhetoric such as "macroevolution"; a term although valid, not used envogue in Scientific Circles, as all macroevolution is, is an aggregate result of microevolutions.

Al Jahith's own words will set this issue straight; believe me this is evolution; not as you described it merely the "effect of the environment"

Does Al Jahiz support the theory of Evolution?

Al-Jahith and Creationism

Some people claim that Al-Jahith discussed mutation, natural selection, and evolution in his book, Kitab al-Hayawan (Book of Animals).[6] These misconceptions started from inaccurate, and sometimes fabricated, translations of words & sections in Al-Jahith's original Arabic book; for example, Al-Jahith made references to the religious concept of a metaphysical act of God that transforms humans into animals as punishment, the process or concept is called "maskh" in Arabic (Kitab al-Hayawan, Vol. 4, p. 36), and the sterile animal resulting is called "miskh" (Kitab al-Hayawan, Vol. 4, p. 68); those references were claimed to be discussions of mutation in an evolutionary context. In the same book, Al-Jahith discusses several times the subject of the struggle for existence and the hierarchy of hunters and preys in the animal kingdom; those discussions were used to mistakenly claim that Al-Jahith discussed natural selection.
In fact, Al-Jahith was a creationist who believed that God created every species in existence in its known form, and repeatedly quoted verses of the Quran that state that God created man, animals, all life, the heavens and earth (Kitab al-Hayawan, Vol. 1, p. 46, 212). Al-Jahith was actually opposed to the concept of speciation or evolution, and he criticized the ideological germs of the theory that existed in his time; the following translation of an excerpt from his book, Kitab al-Hayawan (Book of Animals), illustrate his opposition and criticism of speciation clearly, and also show how the seeds of evolution were surprisingly common and supported by some people in his time:
"Allegations on the Giraffe: Some alleged that the giraffe is a hybrid creation from the wild camel, the wild cow, and the Theekh, which is the male hyena; this, as when they have seen that its name in Farsi is "ashtar-kaw-belank"; and ashtar's interpretation is camel, kaw's interpretation is cow, and belank's interpretation is hyena... ...and their saying of the giraffe ashtar-kaw-belank is a Farsi name, and Persians name things by derivations; as they say of the ostrich: eshtar-margh, as if in estimation they said: it is a bird and camel; thus we did not find this name obligating that the ostrich be a product of what's between the camel and the bird, but when the people likened it to two resembling things; they labeled it with these two things... ...and they made creation a manner of synthesis; so they said: the Theekh [male hyena] may be presented to the wild camel in these lands to mount it, so it is impregnated with offspring, the form of which comes between the forms of the camel and hyena; so if it is female then a bull is presented to it to mount it; so the offspring becomes a giraffe... ...and they alleged that every giraffe on Earth, but it is a product of what they put together; and they alleged that this is widely known in Abyssinia and the ends of Yemen... ...and those and the likes of them corrupt science, stigmatize books, and are puffed up by the multitude of their followers, those you would find to be fond of hearing the bizarre, partial to anecdotes and marvels, and if they gave with this fondness a share of authentication, a chance for carefulness, then books would have been safeguarded from a lot of corruption." (Kitab al-Hayawan, Vol. 1, p. 142-144)

Pure fabrication. Nothing but pomp.

You two only care about how you appear in this argument and don't have a valid argument.

Have some shame.

And cut it out.

You will just embarrass yourselves further.

[ScimitarXEdge]

YouTube - The "Straw Man" Fallacy


A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

My complete statement:



You - being an idiot - have cut out a phrase from my sentence and trying to deceive your self into saying that I am proponent of "Earth is Flat" vs "Earth is Round" theory.



Swordboy's original Strawman



Al Jalalain's tafseer of Ayat 79:3

Recite VerseOpen in new windowGo to quran page
{ وَٱلأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ دَحَاهَا }

and after that He spread out the earth: He made it flat, for it had been created before the heaven, but without having been spread out;

Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

(And after that He spread the earth,) He explains this statement by the statement that follows it,
[أَخْرَجَ مِنْهَا مَآءَهَا وَمَرْعَـهَا ]
(And brought forth therefrom its water and its pasture.) It already has been mentioned previously in Surat Ha Mim As-Sajdah that the earth was created before the heaven was created, but it was only spread out after the creation of the heaven. This means that He brought out what was in it with a forceful action. This is the meaning of what was said by Ibn `Abbas and others, and it was the explanation preferred by Ibn Jarir.



The original argument was that Evolution contradicts Islam.

You and swordboy made a strawman - "Earth is Flat vs Earth is Round" and tried to use the argument of Kufar to discredit the Muffaseerin..


Then swordboy goes on to give a fallacious argument saying:





Does Al Jahiz support the theory of Evolution?





Pure fabrication. Nothing but pomp.

You two only care about how you appear in this argument and don't have a valid argument.

Have some shame.

And cut it out.

You will just embarrass yourselves further.

You took a Wikipedia article which was edited in after another wikipedia article about how Al-Jahith believed in evolution (look at page history on Al-Jahith)

lol

[ScimitarXEdge]

Anyways the issue of whether the Alchemist believes that the Qur'an states that the Earth is flat is NOT a straw man

because you do in fact BELIEVE the Earth is flat. This is undeniable


the purpose of mentioning it serves certain purposes.

1.) Demonstrating that You reject evidence; no matter how profound, verified and tangible it is

2.) That you take the words of interpreters who were men and were mainly just guessing at what the POSSIBLE meanings could be, not even the most likely meanings but POSSIBLE meanings, as being the explicit literal meaning of what the Qur'an states. Which essentially means you're committing the heresy you accuse us of, and that is equating humans to being God.

3.) That the idea that some of the Mufassireen will be as so bold as to believe that the Qur'an states that the Earth is flat DESPITE adequate evidence, and despite their OWN Admission (refer to Tafsir Al-Jalalayn) that believing the Earth to be round, does not contradict any tenets of belief; that if they were WRONG about believing that the Qur'an saying the Earth is flat, that they could also be WRONG in that their understanding of the verses regarding humankind, through Adam being literally made of clay.

[طالب]

ScimitarXEdge hit the nail on the head, I don't have much to add.

If you didn't believe the Earth was flat, you would've just said no when I asked you the question. You would just come straight out and say you don't believe the Earth is flat. Instead you're twisting and turning, trying to wiggle yourself out so you don't come across as a raving lunatic.

[Alchemist]

You took a Wikipedia article which was edited in after another wikipedia article about how Al-Jahith believed in evolution (look at page history on Al-Jahith)

lol

What a liar!

Nothing in that post was taken from wikipedia by me.
The quote was taken directly from Al Jahiz's book to show that he was a staunch creationist and that he rejected any notion of evolution, i.e speciation.
You are the moron who basis his aqida on what is written on wikipedia.
If you two had any sense, you would go beyound that and look at the primary sources directly. The fact that you both are so staunchly committed to this lie is proof that you have at least subconsciously accepted defeat.

In fact - the quote you took from wikipedia to support your own distorted beliefs is debated on wikipedia:

I think you should read the paper again. Al Jahiz has talked about environmental factors forcing species to adopt and in certain cases get transformed in an effort to survive. To me this is a precursor of natural selection. In addition, the Europeans did not have the scientific ideas in vacuum. They inherited it from the Muslims and -via Muslims- the Greeks. Utnasudra (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)I adopt monotheistic submission as a religious belief, and Al-Jahith is a historic scholar & scientist that I am proud of, but as stated elsewhere, I am fluent in Arabic, have access to electronic copies of Book of Animals, and I believe that Al-Jahith never even remotely mentioned anything that has to do with natural selection, speciation, or evolution. Al-Jahith only touched on the struggle of existence, no more nor less, and without even using those exact words or terms! I would welcome a challenge from someone who can show me any references in his original Arabic book to such evolutionist concepts.Wisdawn (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)I have to agree that this section can be very misleading. The paper that is cited (citation #6) is "Al-Jahiz and the Rise of Biological Evolutionism" by Mehmet Bayrakdar. It seems to me after reading that article that Mr. Mehmet Bayrakdar is presenting his own original research in this paper. He is arguing, as I understand it, that Al-Jahiz had anticipated the modern theory of evolution in the "Book of Animals" and that later scientists, such as Darwin, were influenced and guided by Al-Jahiz's work in their own researches. Here lies the problem!!! Whether Mr. Bayrakdar's argument is true or not is besides the point - his article is a piece of original research, and it should be clearly and explicitly presented as such. This section should explicitly say something along the lines of "Mehmet Bayrakdar has argued that Al-Jahiz anticipated the modern theory of evolution" and not cite Mr. Bayrakdar's research as if it was a direct quotation from Al-Jahiz. Works of original research about a topic must be explicitly labeled as being works of original research so that they are not confused with direct quotations from a primary source (in this case, Al-Jahiz's "Book of Animals"). Only direct, word-for-word translations from the "Book of Animals" can be said to be Al-Jahiz's own words; all else must be clearly labeled as being arguments about Al-Jahiz written by a modern scholar. This is very important because we must not confuse what was written BY a person with what was written ABOUT that person!!! The "quotations" from Al-Jahiz that are presented in this section are in fact paraphrases of Mr. Mehmet Bayrakdar's original arguments from the cited paper; the "quotations" are not direct translations from the "Book of Animals", as they should and must be. Someone who is more knowledgeable about either Al-Jahiz or the theory of evolution (or, preferably, both) needs to correct this section and clearly differentiate what Al-Jahiz wrote in the "Book of Animals" from what Mr. Mehmet Bayrakdar argues about Al-Jahiz in his own paper, "Al-Jahiz and the Rise of Biological Evolutionism". The two works, one ancient and one modern, must be clearly separated to ensure that the information on this Wikipedia article is presented in a clear, non-biased, logical, and truthful manner. IonNerd (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)IonNerd

How absurd? The Qur'an claims the earth is flattened, the Muffaseeren only reiterate it, I reiterate it...then we get mocked by you? And this is suppose to show that evolution is correct?

When Darwin is proven wrong because his prediction of transitional forms is not found...it becomes irrelevant to you?

Even Sayed Jamalludin Afghani rejected evolution and darwinism...so he was wrong about everything else too?






You two have demonstrated that you are both liars with no sense of integrity. Cheap tactics like that won't hide the fact that you have both stepped out of the fold of Islam. After commiting shirk and takabur, lying doesn't seem that bad. Twisting the truth to make your selves look smart is only a natural defense response. By taking the issue away from what debunked theory of evolution to another totally irrelevant and even weaker issue like "earth is flat vs earth is round" goes to show that you two have weak minds and are too afraid to delve into the complex. Your level of egocentrism and the way that you both have to validate each other's delusions demonstrates how weak your position is.

Now go shove your heads in the sand and believe what you want to believe.

I have already exposed you both as frauds with weak iman in Al Khaliq (The Creator, ergo Creationism). Rejecting the basic tenants of Islam because of a pseudo scientific theory is proof enough. Then twisting the meaning of ayats...building weak strawman against even muffasseerin...and mocking the belief in Creation...all goes to show how delusional you really are, swordboy. This is has always been your tact ...that when the evidence overwhealms you, you resort to mockery by creating strawfigures.

Just a cheap delusional liar.


Not impressed at all!

[طالب]

You two have demonstrated that you are both liars with no sense of integrity. Cheap tactics like that won't hide the fact that you have both stepped out of the fold of Islam. After commiting shirk and takabur, lying doesn't seem that bad. Twisting the truth to make your selves look smart is only a natural defense response. By taking the issue away from what debunked theory of evolution to another totally irrelevant and even weaker issue like "earth is flat vs earth is round" goes to show that you two have weak minds and are too afraid to delve into the complex. Your level of egocentrism and the way that you both have to validate each other's delusions demonstrates how weak your position is.

Now go shove your heads in the sand and believe what you want to believe.

I have already exposed you both as frauds with weak iman in Al Khaliq (The Creator, ergo Creationism). Rejecting the basic tenants of Islam because of a pseudo scientific theory is proof enough. Then twisting the meaning of ayats...building weak strawman against even muffasseerin...and mocking the belief in Creation...all goes to show how delusional you really are, swordboy. This is has always been your tact ...that when the evidence overwhealms you, you resort to mockery by creating strawfigures.

Just a cheap delusional liar.


Not impressed at all!

You don't really read our posts, do you?

[Alchemist]

You don't really read our posts, do you?

if anyone here has demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension skills ...it is you my grass grazng friend.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Even Sayed Jamalludin Afghani rejected evolution and darwinism...so he was wrong about everything else too?

so it's not possible for someone to be wrong about scientific matters but right about other matters?

That"s why Mu'tazilism is great, we can take the good stuff from a scholar and reject their bad stuff too. we're not bound by some absurd demogoguery like you are.

and haha I was right you're quoting from the Wikipedia edited pages after the Wikipedia discussion history. hahaha

I have already exposed you both as frauds with weak iman in Al Khaliq (The Creator, ergo Creationism).

again who are you trying to convince here, you or us?

[Alchemist]

so it's not possible for someone to be wrong about scientific matters but right about other matters?

That"s why Mu'tazilism is great, we can take the good stuff from a scholar and reject their bad stuff too. we're not bound by some absurd demogoguery like you are.

and haha I was right you're quoting from the Wikipedia edited pages after the Wikipedia discussion history. hahah


again who are you trying to convince here, you or us?

There is no Mu'tazlism anymore there is only Scimitarism.

Good question - who are you trying to fool?

The initial quote I posted is not even on wikipedia, genius! It is a direct interpretation from Al Jahiz's Kitabal Haywan. Do you even read anymore? You just scan it selectively to find whatever to enforce your own delusions?
You made a false allegation against me by saying that I am quoting Wikipedia.
I just exposed you as a showoff and a fraud because you said to Mujeeb "You haven't even read Al Jahiz's book" ...when in fact you haven't yourself. You just quoted wikipedia. But in my second post I showed you that that quote is not even directly from Al Jahiz, it is some one else paraphrasing and adding something of their own whims to convince you that muslim scholars advocated for evolution. Al Jahiz never did...he only noted acclimation, never speciation!

According to Scimitarism, you just rewrite history and paraphrase and misquote others, then make strawmans as necessary to adjust religion to your pseudoscientific delusions. Hahaha at yourself!

By the way goat ... did you notice how you keep posting pictures of kids. This time a kid in a classroom. That is right son. You got an F in my classroom and you can't do much but sit there and sulk like a soar loser.

More cheap tactics by mr.sword boy.

Isn't your week up already? Or you gotta study for another exam?

Yeah ...whatever.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Direct Commentary eh? Not from Wikipedia's RECENTLY edited amendments eh?

lies to defend Shayukh,

you are a mushirk now Alchemist, you have taken ulama as your uluh

[Alchemist]

here is the link to where I got it from:


Al-Jahiz - eNotes.com Reference


It isn't even written by a sheikh ... so your "rational" is just a part of your luciferian indoctrination...all that heavy black metal you used to listen to in your teenage years have had the desired outcome.

Rather than read what is written on it...you have desperatly tried to attack the source to which you yourself have resorted to over and over...still...I did put it in "quotation" marks...so I wasn't afraid of you finding it...but you are so vain and delusional that at this point you have to copy and paste everything to know where I get my material from so you could descredit my source ...note that in the quotation...the quotation is from (Kitabal Haywan)...that book that you haven't even read your self .. but misquoted from wikipedia. In your desperation you ended up proving your self wrong.


Your ridiculous sworboy. Simply pathetic.


You can read arabic ...go find your quotethat affirm evolution in kitab al haywan if you are honest...

nice try ...


as this debate goes on...you and the other two stooges keep stooping lower and lower exposing your own desperation...grasping for straws as you fall.


This is all you got now?

sad...real sad.

go study for ur test boy.

[طالب]

This "debate" ended the moment everybody realised they were talking to a guy who believes the Earth is flat.

[Alchemist]

Still I stand corrected



Basically Scimitar, who is now no different than a pantheistic luciferian, is trying to defend evolution by discrediting the ulama of our deen. He has shown how lay and ignorant he is of the Qur'an. How he has misinterpreted the Ayats of the Qur'an according to his own whims. So really, he recognizes that evolution contradicts Islam ...but still he clings on to it religiously. And to rationalize his stance, he hoped to discredit the Ulama, vainly. His efforts were futile.


Now his argument has turned even more pathatic "You are following shuyukh, ulama, therefore you are worshiping them ..mushrik".

What did the holy prophet peace be upon him say?

"Al Ulama warasthul anbiya"...
'…The ulama are the inheritors of the Prophets; and the Prophets did not leave behind a legacy of wealth, but of knowledge, so whoever partakes of it derives an abundant benefit.'
(Abu Dawud & Tirmidhi)

Abu Musa (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "The guidance and knowledge with which Allah has sent me are like abundant rain which fell on a land. A fertile part of it absorbed the water and brought forth profuse herbage and pasture; and solid ground patches which retained the water by which Allah has benefited people, who drank from it, irrigated their crops and sowed their seeds; and another sandy plane which could neither retain the water nor produce herbage. Such is the similitude of the person who becomes well-versed in the religion of Allah and receives benefit from the Message entrusted to me by Allah, so he himself has learned and taught it to others; such is also the similitude of the person who has stubbornly and ignorantly rejected Allah's Guidance with which I have been sent.''
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim]


Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "The world, with all that it contains, is accursed except for the remembrance of Allah that which pleases Allah; and the religious scholars and seekers of knowledge.''
[At-Tirmidhi].


Abu Umamah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "The superiority of the learned over the devout worshipper is like my superiority over the most inferior amongst you (in good deeds).'' He went on to say, "Allah, His angels, the dwellers of the heaven and the earth, and even the ant in its hole and the fish (in water) supplicate in favour of those who teach people knowledge.''
[At-Tirmidhi].


Abud-Darda (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "He who follows a path in quest of knowledge, Allah will make the path of Jannah easy to him. The angels lower their wings over the seeker of knowledge, being pleased with what he does. The inhabitants of the heavens and the earth and even the fish in the depth of the oceans seek forgiveness for him. The superiority of the learned man (alim) over the devout worshipper is like that of the full moon to the rest of the stars (i.e., in brightness). The learned (ulama) are the heirs of the Prophets who bequeath neither dinar nor dirham but only that of knowledge; and he who acquires it, has in fact acquired an abundant portion.''
[Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi].



So what does Scimitar follow?

LaVey proposes, instead, that if all gods are creations of humans, worship of an external deity is worship of its creator by proxy. He suggests, then, that the rational Satanists should instead internalize their gods and therefore worship themselves; hence the Satanic maxim, "I am my own god."

funny?
I am being accused of the same thing here by scimitar as lavey.

[ScimitarXEdge]

This "debate" ended the moment everybody realised they were talking to a guy who believes the Earth is flat.

exactly if someone thinks the Earth is flat if you talk rationality to them it would be more or less fruitless.

[Alchemist]

exactly if someone thinks the Earth is flat if you talk rationality to them it would be more or less fruitless.

strawman

let it go ...goofball

No one will ever take you seriously on this forum ever again.

You should just stay in the political section where the only thing that matter is opinions and not facts.

I hadn't read your nonsense on the "Sudan women"-whatever thread where you discussed your nonsense philosophy on ecology and human nature... but even there you made strawman arguments against toromana...

From what I understood there...it seemed like you were saying that urban lifestyle is detrimental to humans and nature? Anyway...no need to respond to it here ... i just didn't know how twisted you are.